Bill Emmott is right on his claims for globalisation. He is right that there has not been an historical example of prospering by rejecting globalism. He is right that openness is a prerequisite for growth, though it does not guarantee prosperity. He is right that the optimal amount of openness is not clear (which means there can be too much or unnecessarily much openness).

Bill Emmott, carefully, does not touch upon all sides of the problem. He does not touch upon the most obvious situation of too much openness of this year, namely the new Greek bailout and its conditions, contrary to a 61,3% referendum majority of "OXI" (no).

The pressure toward more powerful economic alliances is a completely unnecessary trend of modern, neoliberal globalization, the benefit of which is only western greed, which must be overturned. It requires the, so called, TINA (there is no alternative) political doctrine, of subjugation to neoliberalism and public sector races to the bottom. The US approach is TPP and TTIP trans-pacific/trans-atlantic trade agreements, which attack the legal systems of democratic societies and fundamental industrial policy choices, like intellectual property rights, and are overly built to give precedence to corporate profits, over all human and sovereign rights.

Bill Emmott attempts to battle "populism" of patriotism as globalism denial. Unless neoliberal TINA policies and TPP/TTIP trade agreements are included, addressed and met with forceful denial, patriotism as globalization denial will become the only choice and there will be no populism at all in these arguments (except of the real intend of their original political supporters).

The careful formation of the argument of Bill Emmott, away of the most disturbing and loud case of this year, where globalization was intrusive to sovereign policy choices and democracy, shows this side of the argument being as hypocritical as that of nationalists.

Bill Emmott, you have rightly titled the emerging electioneering battle of ideas and perhaps sloganeering in near future not only in developed but with them in emerging countries and so also in underdeveloped world in different degrees and forms/grabs in this age of rising conflicts among nation states and several communities within nation states for minimising the loss or maximising their fair share over the globalisation actual or potential benefits and polluting climatic costs and benefits.

I understand frigidity of the author to openly advocating global federal UN subordinating patriotic national political interests in global public interest and welfare but goes only so far as managing the openness by the international minded politicians and parties.it is only a necessary condition but not sufficient to challenge
your patriotic nationalists with potential danger to global economy and with self infliction of economic pain and world peace and progress as proved in history.

I hope you with global economic view will be little dispassionate and bold to go to a logical steps for global political institution more so reformed democratic federal UN for managing the economic and financial globalisation and global climatic changes. You have in fact a duty to humanity to speak lest worst happen.

The only way you will get a global UN with that kind of authority is at Gunpoint. Seriously proposing it would absolutely trigger war, civil and likely world wide. Neither the UN nor the other "extranational" organizations represent my interests even faintly. And speaking for a better then fair amount of people I would not accept it under any circumstances.

I note that the writer of this article and the poster's are ignoring the elephant in the room. Globalism has pretty much screwed over the working class. If things don't change that distant drumming you here won't be thunder it will the march of jackboots. You people in while waving the flag of globalism and competing in a global economy are creating a large and growing class with no hope and no future. The gig economy? No benefits, no future, no hope. The problem with people with no hope is any change looks good. You folks can wrap globalism in any flag you want. The fact remains it benefits less than 5 percent of the people a recipe for explosion through out history. F---- the internationalists globalism is sinking most of us permanently. As for are beloved politicians most of them are so beholden to their corporate owners that I don't believe anyone believes they put the peoples interests above their Masters in the Boardrooms. For those who think I am just an ignorant redneck bear in mind my opinions are fairly general in the working class.

Bill Emmott says "patriotism in the age of globalization" does not have to mean isolationism - closing off one's borders. Indeed, there is a battle going on between patriots and globalists in the West. Far-right parties, like France's Front National under its populist leader, Marie Le Pen or GOP presidential candidate, Donald Trump have hijacked patriotism in their effort to outdo mainstream political parties, that are liberal, outward-looking internationalists. Emmott says this "new fault line in politics" - a belief that "openness is treason and closure is patriotic" is "as false as it is dangerous." Perhaps patrotism had for far too long been left to extremist parties, that advocate an identity or a sense of belonging linked to nationhood.
The open society we live in opts for shared values, tolerance, openness and our commitment to democracy and liberty. We reject the idea of turning "back the clock to the interwar period," and to impose "onerous trade restrictions" and to persecute or expel "minority groups." The US "enacted the most restrictive immigration laws since the country’s founding" and ships carrying Jews fleeing Nazi Germany were sent back to Europe.
Today we need to be able to celebrate patriotism, while reaching out to foreigners with open arms, without resorting to narrow nationalism and jingoism. Patriotism doesn't have to be "harder-headed about protecting the national interest." It is cynical of Le Pen and her supporters to claim that "globalization was either an act of foolish generosity that helped the rest of the world at the expense of the nation, or a phenomenon that benefited only the elites and not ordinary people."
Le Pen's argument "France for the French" goes down well with the working class, which felt abandoned by the political left. They complain about "high unemployment and declining living standards," saying their interests "have been subordinated to those of the elite." The Arab Spring had shown that, it is unsustainable when "a majority feels neglected or exploited." As a result,"either the government or the entire system will be overturned."
Emmott says: "What mainstream parties need to be make clear, however, is that the answers to those problems do not lie in closing borders or minds. There is no example, anywhere in history, of a society or an economy that has prospered over the long term by rejecting globalism." The world of the 21st century is an era born of globalisation, with greater insecurity and instability than ever before. Due to interdependence a national government needs to cooperate with the international community, as it does not always have the means or capacity to address uncertainty and challenges. In a "political battle over how best to serve the country and its people," it's time that mainstream parties "reclaim the mantle of patriotism and redefine the national interest accordingly." They have to learn that "national interest lies in managing openness – not in throwing it away."

The problem with all the arguments about the benefits not going to the masses is that for a whole bunch of things, the masses are overpaid in a global context. Take farming. It will be cheaper for the country to import agricultural produce from say Africa. The difference in the life style that a farmer in Africa demands for his output vs those in the developed world can explain some of the price differential and the difference between PPP exchange rate vs the actual exchange rates explains some of the other. Now what do you do for a generation or two as the developed world adjusts for this?

at the same time the left wing parties in europe have to realize that they cannot simply answer to electoral votes by refuting them as "wrong", as they seem to be doing more and more often. is the left with or against the EU? the monetary crisis? the free-market? does it support internationalism, liberalism, or the new foundation of a lower class in EU countries without electoral powers and an undefined role in the country's future or a defined standard of living? a diminishing central power? the truth is, all of these new arguments fail to be answered by the old left wing rhetoric, and by criticizing others they (we?) are failing to address these issues, and it does takes courage. and overall, cooperation.

and what we are failing to see is that in the poor neighborhoods, coping with and cooperating in this phenomenon has been going on for a long time, and many syndicate leaders and unionists have no idea! this is exactly the reason why they are losing the lower-class base

The article examines very important questions, trying to resolve a dangerous paradox.
I agree with the writer that patriotism, nationalistic pride should not contradict existence in a global, integral world.
First of all "globalization", existence in a globally integrated and interdependent world is not man-made, this is an evolutionary necessity.
We still exist within the vast natural system we evolved from and the wave of evolution that "created" and developed us still affects us driving us forward.
And nature's system is fully, intricately interconnected and interdependent. Today we have reached the maturation of the human species when such integration and interdependence is expected from us too in order to adapt to the system around us.
We do not have any free choice in the matter since the natural system infinitely larger and stronger than us, our only "choice" is full adaptation, integration.
But that does not mean we all have to become the same, we all have to become "loving friends", faceless, grey cogwheels in a system.
When we look at nature we can see how diverse, colorful it is, how many different very well defined species contribute to the harmonious whole, sustaining its homeostasis.
And we can do the same. We can still preserve our individual, national uniqueness, use our talents, capabilities 100%.
All we have to learn is how to create a human system where all those individual, national talents, uniqueness merge together, mutually complement each other so instead of the destructive competition we build natural, mutually complementing cooperation.

The overriding point is that, indeed, globalization--as perhaps best represented these days by the Internet itself, is a full-blown phase in the evolution of human civilization that can be limited a bit here and there, blocked here and there, but ultimately these are small effects and overrun. No person, no oligarchy, ultimately run the thing. We can't even really model it in since around 50 million users as I understand.

Corporate misuse of globalism? Yes, certainly there are cancers and parasites as well as growth accelerators--but these are attached phenomena--not essence.

Under this reality, isolation becomes suffocation, and imperialism will be like sticking a metal fork into an electric socket.

Its crucial for humanity to find a way to go with, instead of against, the grain of this. This doesn't mean disintegration of national identity, but it does mean seeing its purpose not for itself, but as it were, an organ of the body humanity.

If this path is followed, competition will transform into multi-tier collaboration, and much of the entropy of self-sustaining will turn into global efficiency. Terrorism will meet with a living immune system that it can never be equipped to handle--though it is doubtful that it will continue o exist as this new reality forms about it. The goals of terrorism will become confused and evaporate in the reality surrounding it that will become evermore incomprehensible to it in its simple black-and-white ideology.

While it may be true that "there is no example, anywhere in history, of a society or an economy that has prospered over the long term by rejecting globalism," it is most assuredly true that there are many examples of societies and economies that have prospered as the result of adopting imperialism. And an argument can be made that today's "globalism" is in fact corporate imperialism in a flimsy disguise.

Having a foot in both camps will not win you any friends.
No: there is nothing wrong with globalisation itself but as with any tools of the trade they can be misused and misused it has been and it has nothing to do with patriotism but people clumsily trying to right a wrong that blind Freddy can see and feel. It is remarkable that the lid has been kept on any anarchy for so long. The French political elite may have successfully colluded to get the result they wanted but if they do not address the problems appropriately the people may not be so accommodating next time. Globalisation has turned into a dirty word and may not recover without some drastic action to appease more people than it does now...

'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel' - Samuel Johnston. Boswell added that J meant 'false patriotism.' My question is whether there is any other kind, as the word seems to be connected with clannish exclusivity and justifying out-group hate, rather than anything noble or even useful.

Mark this: sung in British pubs during the Russo-Turkis hwar around 1870:

'We don't want to fight but by Jingo if we do
We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too
We've fought the Bear before, and while we're Britons true
The Russians shall not have Constantinople.

'Patriotism' seems synonymous with 'jingoism'

That there exist inequalities and injustices is true quite independently of 'patriotism', by any other name.

Truthfully in the US globalization has benefited only the elites. It has left the working class with rectums big enough for 99 midgets on mopeds to do a U-turn in. Wages have flat lined Unions are effectively DEAD. But the corporations and the elites are doing remarkably well out of the deal. You wonderful globalists are leaving the workers nothing but hate. Hate for foreigners their jobs are shipped to, Hate for The H1b's who can do the same work cheaper. People forced to train their own replacements do not love Globalization, Hate & despise but not love. Trump may fail but eventually the results of policies that benefit a few at the price of many will give you a new Bastille day or Hitler. Barring a major change in trends it isn't if its merely when. The results of that will be hand over power or rule at gunpoint by force. You are nver going to sell to the working class th crud that a company with no employees in Ireland no offices in Ireland is Irish and should not pay taxes in the US. Or that trying to compete with people in Malaysia making 50 cents a day is FAIR trade. Thus the rage of the working class. The treaties AND LAWS don't just favor the Elites they Blatantly favor them.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.